After all the story brought together two of the most sensitive issues facing this current Bangladesh government.

First, the disappearance of individuals by law enforcement agencies - which according to human rights organizations number over 70 since this government came to power (though some have returned).

And secondly the international crimes tribunal which, though operating with a significant deal of public support since it was established in 2010 has also been subject to criticism and the occasional scandal.

So we were prepared for more than just a few brickbats.

However, it was a surprise that it would be the BBC Bangla service which would be the trojan horse for the attacks, writing a misleading – and one has to say rather biased - article on its website which was then copied by the likes of the Daily Star, Prothom Alo and Jonokhonto and has formed the basis of most of the establishment media news reporting here in Dhaka.

All journalism should of course be subject to critical review – and none more so than an article making such a serious allegation as the one made by the New Age article. But whilst it is difficult to control the partisanship of parts of the Bangladesh media, one would certainly expect something rather different from the BBC’s Bangla Service which is controlled by editorial guidelines requiring neutrality, objectivity and fairness.

The BBC Bangla service published two articles – one replacing the other - following the publication of the New Age story. It is important to note that these were both news stories, not comment or analysis.

No mention of HRW statement
Both BBC articles barely refer to the New Age report and do not quote at all from the statement given by Bali quoted in the report.

Moreover neither of the two articles refer at all to a Human Rights Watch press release published after the New Age report which supported the paper’s claim that Bali claimed that he was abducted.

The international human rights organisation’s press release stated that: ‘Bali, a Bangladeshi national, claims he was abducted by the Bangladeshi police from the entrance to the ICT courthouse, detained in Bangladesh, then forced by Bangladeshi security forces across the border into India, where he claims he was detained and tortured by the notorious Border Security Force (BSF) before being held in Kolkata’s Dum Dum jail.’

At the very least one would have expected the Bengali Service to have referred to what is in effect confirmation of New Age’s story and to have perhaps even asked Human Rights Watch what was the basis of their claim. Instead, the BBC ignored it.

Anonymous intelligence agency source
In both articles, the BBC quotes from an anonymous intelligence agency source - which is apparently uncorroborated - to make a claim about how Bali supposedly got his statement out of prison.

The BBC's first report stated: ‘However, through a source from West Bengal's intelligence BBC reporter Amitabh Bhatyashali came to know that the Dum Dum prison authority has already interrogated Mr. Bali and Mr. Bali informed the prison officers that he sent the statement through a prison guard by alluring him with money. The intelligence sources informed further that according to Mr. Bali, that prison guard went to the border and handed it over to a smuggler.’ Similar wording was used in the second article that replaced the first. Only the second BBC article is currently online.

Prison guards, money and smugglers gives an impression that the whole process was rather murky, even corrupt and illegal. Moreover it in effect accused Bali of what must be a breach of prison rules, and perhaps even a criminal offence.

It is notable how the article states that the BBC journalists says that he ‘came to know’ this information, rather than for example stating that the intelligence agent ‘claimed’ that this is what Bali supposedly said to a prison guard – giving what was apparently said by the intelligence agent a particular authority.

BBC's rules on use of anonymous sources
The BBC have pretty strict rules on the use of anonymous sources as for obvious reasons it only wants to publish content that is credible and sufficiently supported by evidence - not statements by people whose credibility is questionable and who have a particular interest in a newspaper telling a particular story.

The BBC's editorial guidelines state that ‘Any proposal to rely on a single unnamed source making a serious allegation … must be referred to Director Editorial Policy and Standards and Programme Legal Advice.’ In considering whether the source should be relied upon the Director of Editorial Policy is required to consider, inter alia: (a) whether the story is of significant public interest; (b) whether the source is of proven credibility and reliability and in a position to have sufficient knowledge of the events featured; (c) whether there are safety concerns (d) whether a response to serious allegations has been sought from the people or organisations concerned; (e) and whether there are any sensitive and personal issues

Was the use of the anonymous source ever raised with the relevant Editorial and Legal people within the BBC? I doubt it. But if it was, it is difficult to see how the BBC officials could have authorized its use.

First, this was not just any old anonymous source but an anonymous ‘intelligence agency’ source. The BBC must know well how unreliable such sources can be and how they are, in general, an unreliable foundation of credible journalism without proper corroboration. Intelligence agency sources around the world are known to be highly unreliable, and this is certainly the case in South Asia. And remember here, this is what an intelligence agent says that a prisoner supposedly said to a prison official.

Secondly, the source was making a serious allegation against Bali, a vulnerable person in jail whom the BBC was not in a position to seek a response .

No smugglers, no prison guards, and no money exchange
What the intelligence agency person is claimed to have said also contradicts what New Age stated in its article. Why therefore did the BBC reporter not contact New Age for a response? If it had, the paper would have confirmed to the BBC that in obtaining the statement there were no smugglers, no prison guards, and no money exchange involved.

Bali's confession
The second BBC article had a much stronger headline, ‘Nothing regarding the Kidnap is there in the records of Sukharanjon Bali, the missing witness.’ The core of the article are quotes from the police's First Information Report and Bali's guilty plea in court.

However, these records are ones which the New Age report had also referred to and quoted from.

The New Age report stated: “On April 3, Bali was sentenced to imprisonment in a Kolkata court for 105 days imprisonment after pleading guilty for illegal entry into India under the country’s Foreigners Act 1946…. The first information report drafted by the Indian police on December 24, 2012 states that police officer Kuldeep Singh had ‘observed suspicious’ movement in the fields near the Indian border in Swarupnagar and that when challenged Bali had ‘fled away.’ When apprehended, the FIR states that Bali had told them that ‘he was coming from Bangladesh to meet his brothers.’”

So the New Age article clearly points out that there was a difference between the statement Bali gave to New Age, and the allegation set out in the FIR drafted by the police to which he pleaded guilty.

However, the way the BBC writes its article gives the reader the impression that these documents are something entirely new to the story, failing to credit New Age with having referred to them in its original report.

As a result the BBC gives the reader the strong impression that the original New Age article had failed to appreciate some crucial piece of evidence.

This certainly is the way a host of Bangladesh media interpreted the story. The Daily Star had a headline ‘Bali was not forced to flee: says BBC report quoting his confession to Indian magistrate’.

And Jonokhonto’s article has a first paragraph which reads, ‘This means, the allegation of abduction of Sukharanjon Bali, witness of the case against convicted Jamaat leader Sayeedee, by the law enforcement agency has been proved to be false.’

Context for confession
As long as appropriate context and background is provided, it was of course perfectly legitimate for the BBC to focus on the police FIR and the court documents and to consider how these relate to Bali’s statement to New Age, but perhaps if the BBC wanted to do that it should also have enquired a little further about why Bali may have pleaded guilty to the offense.

Bangladeshis in Bali’s position - that is to say those detained for illegal entry into India - are generally advised to plead guilty to offences under the Foreigners Act so that they can serve a short sentence and be repatriated. His guilty plea should therefore be seen within that perspective – a context entirely missing from the BBC story.

Moreover, the BBC article does not refer to what Bali himself stated to New Age about his initial detention by the Indian police. The New Age report quotes him as saying, ‘They tortured me and asked me what I had been doing there. I tried to narrate the course of events that had taken place till I was handed over to the BSF. They probably did not find my answers satisfactory and I was beaten even more profusely.’ Perhaps the BBC could at least have referred to that.

Not fair and neutral
Unfortunately, both BBC articles are not fair and neutral news reporting. Perhaps it was unintentional, but nonetheless in its omissions the articles appear one-sided and an attempt to discredit the New Age article and the statement given by Sukharanjan Bali.

In Bangladesh, the BBC's Bengali service has quite a revered status, but on this occasion it has certainly slipped up. It should acknowledge this, and work to regain the independence and integrity that we all know it is very much capable of providing.

In order to do so, however, the BBC must recognise that in the context of the international crimes tribunal, its job, whatever the personal views of the reporters, must not be to 'protect' the process, but to properly report on it and the issues surrounding it.

As for the Daily Star and Jonokhonto and other similar media in Bangladesh.

One would hope that even as they may support the International Crimes Tribunal editorially (as New Age in fact does), they can ensure that their news reporting on the tribunal - including even on contentious issues like those concerning the abduction of a witness - is done fairly.

And when it comes to the question of the abduction of Sukharanjon Bali himself, they should consider a a bit more what Bali himself had to say – rather than simply relying on the Bangladesh and Indian police and intelligence agencies as authoritative versions of what happened.

Friday, May 17, 2013

The BBC Bengali service did a piece on Sukhranjan Bali, the defence witness abducted by law enforcement agencies in November last year, being found in a Calcutta jail, as disclosed yesterday in the New Age article.

You can read the BBC article here in Bangla (the translation is at the bottom of this post.)

The report published in the New Age of Dhaka claims that Shukhoronjon Bali sent them a written statement from Indian prison. In this statement he describes the incident of kidnap and how he was pushed to India.

However, Ranvir Kumar, chief of the Prison Division of West Bengal, told BBC that it's almost impossible to take statement from a Bangladeshi prisoner and handing it over to a foreign newspaper. If any relative visits, the authority scrutinizes the Passport-Visa of the visitor.

However, through a source from West Bengal's intelligence BBC reporter Amitabh Bhatyashali came to know that the Dum Dum prison authority has already interrogated Mr. Bali and Mr. Bali informed the prison officers that he sent the statement through a prison guard by alluring him with money.

The intelligence sources informed further that according to Mr. Bali, that prison guard went to the border and handed it over to a smuggler. The sources say that the prison authority has already identified that prison guard and started the process of his punishment

First of all it states that 'New Age of Dhaka claims that Shukhoronjon Bali sent them a written statement from Indian prison.' That was not in fact what the New Age article stated. It states as follows:

The paper made contact with an Indian citizen, with access to the jail, willing to meet Bali and take a statement from him. This person, who wishes to remain anonymous for security reasons, is independent of all parties involved in the Bangladesh tribunal — with no connections to either the Jamaat-e-Islami or the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, whose leaders are currently being prosecuted for crimes alleged to have been committed in 1971 or to the Bangladesh government.

Where from that does the BBC get that Bali sent New Age a written statement?

Secondly, the BBC article then quotes a 'source from West Bengal's intelligence [agency]' who says that Bali told them when he was questioned that 'he had sent the statement through a prison guard by alluring him with money.' It then goes onto say that; 'The intelligence sources informed further that according to Mr. Bali, that prison guard went to the border and handed it over to a smuggler.'

Without giving anything away, I can assure the BBC, there were no smugglers, no prison guards, no money exchange in the obtaining of this statement.

Thirdly, I am rather shocked that the BBC decided to rely on an anonymous intelligence agency person as the source of this information. Perhaps the BBC should use better sourcing in the future - and not simply write down anything that an intelligence agency person told them. If all journalists started doing this, the papers would be fall of completely false and motivated stories - just like this one turns out to be in its last few paragraphs.

'Any proposal to rely on a single unnamed source making a serious allegation ... must be referred to Director Editorial Policy and Standards and Programme Legal Advice.'

I wonder whether this was done? I would guess almost certainly not. Had it been referred to this person/department, the following issues would then have needed to be considered:

- whether the story is of significant public interest - whether the source is of proven credibility and reliability and in a position to have sufficient knowledge of the events featured
- any legal issues
- safety concerns, for example for whistleblowers
- whether a response to serious allegations has been sought from the people or organisations concerned
sensitive and personal issues
- whether the serious allegation was made or substantiated "off the record".

And had they considered these issues, it is pretty likely that this anonymous comment from an intelligence agency would not have been published.

---------------

Here is the translation of the BBC Bangla piece

Missing witness of war crime suite found at Indian prison

BBC has been informed that Shukhoronjon Bali, a prominent witness of the war crime case against the convicted Jamaat e Islami leader Delowar Hossain Sayedee is at an Indian prison.

Shukhoronjon Bali disappeared from the international crime tribunal premise at the Dhaka on 5th November last year. However, Amitabh Bhatyashali from Kolkata informed us that he has been confirmed by the prison authority that one person named Shukhoronjon Bala is staying as a prisoner at Dum Dum prison at Kolkata.

It has been confirmed by Indian prison authority, Court’s documents and through various informations from different sources that the missing Shukhoronjon Bali of Bangladesh and Shukhoronjon Bala of Dum Dum prison is the same person.

One thing is worth mentioning here, previously The New Age, a English newspaper of Dhaka, published a news saying Shukhoronjon Bali has been imprisoned in Indian prison. Through the link of that news, BBC conducted an enquiry and came out with this information.

The Kidnap Controversy
Initially, Shukhoronjon Bali was a state (prosecution’s) witness against Jamaat e Islami leader Delowar Hossain Sayedee at the international crime tribunal.

But later on, he changed his side and agreed to give testimony in favor of Delowar Hossain Sayedee, as informed by the defense lawyers.

Shukhoronjon Bali was kidnapped from the international crime tribunal premise at the Dhaka on 5th November last year.

Jamaat e Islami leader Delowar Hossain Sayedee’s lawyers complained that people from government law enforcement agencies have kidnapped him.

However, the states denied this complaint.

How he ended up in Dum Dum Prison
BBC reporter Amitabh Bhatyashali informs, on 23rd December night, last year BSF detained one Bangladeshi from India-Bangladesh border at Swarupnagar area of North 24 Parganas with a charge of illegally entering into Indian Territory.

Amitabh Bhatyashali informs, Advocate Mosaraf Hossain assumes, since most of the members of BSF are Hindi speaker, they might have mistakenly misspelled Shukhoronjon Bali’s name while recording his name after the detention.

The court records inform further, BSF handed him over to the Swarupnagar police station. The case number of the case filed against him is 713, dated: 25th of December, 2012.

The next day, on 26 December, Shukhoronjon Bali was produced in court with the charge of illegally crossing the Indian border. Charge against him was framed under section 14 and 14 (c) of Foreigners Act.

The Second Additional Magistrate of Basirhat gave judgment against Shukhoronjon Bali on 3rd April. He was at jail custody in the time in between.

Prison guard’s punishment
The report published in the new age of Dhaka claims that Shukhoronjon Bali sent them a written statement from Indian prison. In this statement he describes the incident of kidnap and how he was pushed to India.

However, Ranvir Kumar, chief of the Prison Division of West Bengal, told BBC that it's almost impossible to take statement from a Bangladeshi prisoner and handing it over to a foreign newspaper. If any relative visits, the authority scrutinizes the Passport-Visa of the visitor.

However, through a source from West Bengal's intelligence BBC reporter Amitabh Bhatyashali came to know that the Dum Dum prison authority has already interrogated Mr. Bali and Mr. Bali informed the prison officers that he sent the statement through a prison guard by alluring him with money.

The intelligence sources informed further that according to Mr. Bali, that prison guard went to the border and handed it over to a smuggler. The sources say that the prison authority has already identified that prison guard and started the process of his punishment

Following on from the New Age article (see previous post) which revealed that an International Crimes Tribunal witness, whom defence lawyers alleged was abducted from outside the tribunal's gates was in a Kolkata jail and had given a statement supporting his detention, Human Rights Watch issued this statement.

India: Protect Bangladesh War Crimes Tribunal WitnessAbducted in Bangladesh, Now Detained in India, Risk of Death if ReturnedMay 16, 2013

(New York) – The authorities in India and Bangladesh should take all necessary steps to protect Shukhoranjan Bali, a long-missing witness in the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Bangladesh, Human Rights Watch said today.

Bali, a Bangladeshi national, claims he was abducted by the Bangladeshi police from the entrance to the ICT courthouse, detained in Bangladesh, then forced by Bangladeshi security forces across the border into India, where he claims he was detained and tortured by the notorious Border Security Force (BSF) before being held in Kolkata’s Dum Dum jail.

“The apparent abduction of a witness in a trial at the ICT is a cause for serious concern about the conduct of the prosecution, judges and government,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “Among many questions is who ordered the abduction, and how senior the officials involved were.”

Bali was due to appear to give evidence as a defense witness before the ICT, a court expressly set up to try people suspected of war crimes during Bangladesh’s 1971 war of independence. He had previously been listed as a prosecution witness. Bali claims that on November 5, 2012, he was abducted by people in plainclothes at the gates of the ICT, put into a police van, and then taken away to the offices of the police.

Witnesses present at the courthouse claimed to have seen the abduction.

Defense complaints to the ICT led to the judges asking for the prosecution, rather than an independent body, to investigate the allegations. The prosecution returned to the court and denied the defense allegations entirely, saying that there had been no abduction, despite eyewitnesses. The judges ordered no further investigation into Bali’s disappearance. No information about his whereabouts was made public and the government ignored calls to set up an investigation. The attorney general, testifying on a habeas corpus petition filed on Bali’s behalf, stated that the abduction claim had been made to bring the court into disrepute – but offered no evidence for this assertion.

Bali had been expected to counter prosecution allegations about the involvement of Delwar Hossain Sayedee in the 1971 murder of Bali’s brother. Saydeee has since been sentenced to hang, in part for the murder of Bali’s brother.

Bali claims that he was abducted at the courthouse by police, held in government custody for several weeks, and then pushed across the border to India. Human Rights Watch has documented how the BSF routinely kills Bangladeshis who cross the border illegally. In April, Bali was sentenced by an Indian court to 110 days in jail for entering the country illegally. He has already completed his term but is still in jail.

Human Rights Watch learned in March that Bali was in Dum Dum jail in Kolkata, but did not make the information public pending meeting Bali to ensure that he thought this would not jeopardize his safety. Human Rights Watch is releasing this background after the Bangladesh newspaper, New Age, made this information public on May 15.

India should not return Bali to Bangladesh until he is interviewed by the Indian office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which can determine if he wishes to claim asylum and whether he is a refugee. If he does not wish to claim asylum, or his asylum claim is rejected, India should still not return him to Bangladesh when there is a real risk to his life or of his suffering ill-treatment if he returns there.

“Those involved in his abduction may have assumed Bali would be killed by the Indian Border Security Force when he was pushed into India, or that he would permanently disappear,” Adams said. “There is a real risk to Bali if he is returned to Bangladesh, as he could expose those involved in his abduction. Bali needs access to an independent lawyer and UNHCR so that he can make an informed decision about whether it is safe to return to Bangladesh.”

The tribunal and the government have repeatedly denied the abduction claiming that it was simply a Jamaat-e-Islami drama trying to derail the tribunal. But when I initially investigated the allegation - speaking to those who said that they were eye-witnesses to the abduction, and to members of the family, I felt the evidence for the abduction was credible, though far from proven.

There have of course always been one particular weakness in the evidence - in that the only witnesses were ICT defence lawyers and journalists who worked for a paper (Sangram) with links to the party of the accused (Jamaat-e-Islami). However, nonetheless I was impressed by the detail of what the witnesses told me as well as the consistency in the accounts given by the different witnesses. It was also consistent with what family members, living in Pirojpur and elsewhere, told me.

So whilst the allegation was far from proven - there were no independent witnesses - it was in my mind a credible allegation.

Since November 2012, I have been trying to find ways to corroborate the story. I had various tip-offs that Bali was in one place or the other, but nothing came of them. Then in February, I got a tip-off that he was detained in a jail in West Bengal and I have been spending the last few months corroborating this and arranging for someone trustworthy, as well as entirely independent from the tribunal process and from Bangladesh politics, to meet him. This was not easy, but it was managed.

All that I wanted to know was Bali's story. How come he was not detained in a jail in India? How did he get there? And was there any truth to the allegation that he had been abducted? Whatever he said, that would have been the story that I would have written.

And set out below is the story that was published in The New Age newspaper on Thursday 16 May. His statement supports the allegation that he was detained outside the international crimes tribunal on 5 November 2012 by plain clothes officers and taken away. He says that he was detained for six weeks in Dhaka before being taken to India and dumped across the border. The statement was freely given. It is notable that in his statement, Bali did say some things that are inconsistent with what was previously stated by his family and lawyers.

His statement is of course very significant - but there are many unanswered questions. The statement was not obtained through a process of detailed questioning and so many things remain unknown. One would expect Bali to have detailed information that would help to independently corroborate his detention - something that can only be obtained through a process of questioning which I hope that UNHCR will now be able to do.

Here is the article:

WAR CRIMES TRIALWitness alleges state abduction

David Bergman

A witness at the international crimes tribunal in Dhaka who defence lawyers claim to have been abducted from outside the court in November 2012 by law enforcement agents has been found in a Kolkata jail.

Sukhranjan Bali, a Hindu man from the southern district of Pirojpur, has confirmed that on the morning of November 5, 2012 he was taken from outside the tribunal gates by Bangladeshi law enforcement officials as he was on his way hoping to give deposition on behalf of Jamaat-e-Islami’s nayeb-e-amir Delwar Hossain Sayedee.

In a statement given whilst in detention in India, Bali says that he was ‘abducted from the court premises in a police van and was taken to an office in Dhaka’ which he later thought belonged to the Detective Branch of the police because of words on a paper stamp which he saw on the desk.

In February this year, the New Age first received information that Sukhranjan Bali was being held in Dum Dum Correctional Home in Kolkata and that members of his family had gone to visit him. Since then, the newspaper has been working to confirm the accuracy of the information and determine how he got there.

The paper made contact with an Indian citizen, with access to the jail, willing to meet Bali and take a statement from him. This person, who wishes to remain anonymous for security reasons, is independent of all parties involved in the Bangladesh tribunal — with no connections to either the Jamaat-e-Islami or the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, whose leaders are currently being prosecuted for crimes alleged to have been committed in 1971 or to the Bangladesh government.

The person who took the statement has confirmed to New Age that the man who gave the statement to him was the same person as the man shown in a genuine photograph of Bali. ‘Bali gave a very graphic explanation of the whole incident which I think it would be very hard in a flash of moment to come out with like that if it were not true,’ the person who took the statement told New Age, though conceding that at the time he gave he statement, Bali appeared nervous.

Bali said in the statement that the ‘people in the office were in police uniforms and the ones who abducted me were in civil clothes.’ He stated that he was not subject to any torture at the Dhaka office but ‘was being asked the reason why I was supportive of Sayedee sahib.… They said that I will be killed and Sayedee sahib will be hanged.’

According to his statement, Bali remained in illegal detention in Dhaka for six weeks before being handed over to India’s Border Security Force near the end of December 2012 and that he has been detained in different Indian jails for the past four months and a half.New Age has not been able to independently confirm Bali’s claims and there are some inconsistencies between his statement and comments previously made by members of his family and by the International Crimes Tribunal defence team — although the timeline given by Bali does correspond with papers filed in court relating to his detention in India.

On April 3, Bali was sentenced to imprisonment in a Kolkata court for 105 days imprisonment after pleading guilty for illegal entry into India under the country’s Foreigners Act 1946. Taking into account the time already served in detention awaiting trial, he could be repatriated to Bangladesh any day.

Md Masuder Rahman, the media and public relations officer of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police, said, ‘We don’t have any information [about Bali]. I spoke to the joint commissioner Monirul Islam and he said that he does not know any information. He does not know where [Bali] is at the moment.’ Islam is a senior official of the Detective Branch.

Towards the end of February 2013, the International Crimes Tribunal sentenced Sayedee to death for the commission of two offences of crimes against humanity during the 1971 war, one of which involved the killing of Sukhranjan Bali’s brother Bishabali.

The court held that Bishabali was bound to a coconut tree and ‘shot dead by a Razakar at the insistence of accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi.’ The court also convicted him for six other offences but imposed no punishment. The case is currently under appeal at the Appellate Division of the Supreme court

The government and tribunal authorities have consistently denied that Bali had been abducted from outside the tribunal by law enforcement agencies.

On the morning of November 5, 2012, a few hours after defence lawyers reported the alleged incident to the three judges of International Crimes Tribunal 1, the chief prosecutor, with the head of the investigation agency standing beside him, told the court, ‘The police officers [outside the court] have stated that nothing has happened within their knowledge.’

Subsequently, a release issued by the tribunal’s prosecution agency said that the alleged abduction was an ‘unacceptable drama’ which was ‘part of [Jamaat-e-Islami] trying to dismiss the tribunal and to release their leader unlawfully.’

In response to a habeas corpus application, a week after the alleged abduction, the attorney general, Mahbubey Alam, also told a High Court bench that the story was ‘absolutely ridiculous.… The petition is absolutely male fide.’

The prosecution also pointed out at the time that Bali was not even due to give evidence at the tribunal that day.

Bali’s statement goes on to state that having been kept by Bangladesh law enforcing agencies for about six weeks, on December 23, 2012 he was blindfolded and taken by the Bangladesh police to the border and handed him over to India’s Border Security Force. ‘They stopped the car in Magura at a hotel to provide me with food. They removed the blindfold and I found out that I was brought there in a private car. After I finished my meal, I was again blindfolded and we were driving again and they finally handed me over to the BSF about 5:00pm and then they left,’ he says in his statement.

Bali says that he was harshly treated by the Border Security Force. ‘They tortured me and asked me what I had been doing there. I tried to narrate the course of events that had taken place till I was handed over to the BSF. They probably did not find my answers satisfactory and I was beaten even more profusely.’

Due to his injuries, he says that the BSF took him to a hospital and was from there taken to the Swarupnagar police station which produced him the next day before the Basirhat court. After being detained at the Basirhat jail for about 20 days, Bali says that he was shifted to Dum Dum Correctional Home.

In his statement, Bali says that he was first asked to give evidence on behalf of Sayedee some time after May 2012, when Sayedee’s son ‘Bulbul’ had come to his house to meet him.

As he was not present, they spoke over the phone. ‘Bulbul requested me to be a witness for Sayedee. After a few days, Bulbul died,’ the statement says, referring to the death on June 13, 2012 of Rafique-Bin-Sayeed, Sayedee’s eldest son.

After the son’s death from a heart attack, Bali said that he kept in touch with Sayedee’s other sons through mobile and that he came to Dhaka ‘before Durga Puja’ [October 20–24], staying at Sayedee’s house ‘for 15 to 16 days.’

He says that on November 5, he was ‘taken to the ninth floor’ in a building at Paltan where he met Sayedee’s lawyers and was then taken to the tribunal.

Previously, Sayedee’s lawyers and Bali’s wife claimed that Bali had first come to Dhaka in early November. The lawyers had also stated that he had not stayed with any member of Sayedee’s family whilst in Dhaka.

The first information report drafted by the Indian police on December 24, 2012 states that police officer Kuldeep Singh had ‘observed suspicious’ movement in the fields near the Indian border in Swarupnagar and that when challenged Bali had ‘fled away.’ When apprehended, the FIR states that Bali had told them that ‘he was coming from Bangladesh to meet his brothers.’

Sharif Uddin, the first secretary (political) at the Indian High Commission in Kolkata, told New Age that three weeks ago, a Bangladesh home ministry team had come to Kolkata to meet Bangladeshis detained in different correctional homes. ‘We visited Dum Dum Correctional Home. I accompanied them. But I cannot say if the three-member delegation met Bali.’

One of the members of the team, Lieutenant Colonel Tauhid of the Border Guard Bangladesh, told New Age that he could not say whether they had met Bali. ‘I cannot remember as there were in the jail maybe about 130 people. You need to talk to the home ministry.’

About Me

This is a personal blog, and any views are solely mine. I am a Bangladesh based journalist who has since August 2010 worked as Editor, Special Reports for the Bangladesh national newspaper, New Age (see my other blog on the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh: http://bangladeshwarcrimes.blogspot.com) Prior to working at New Age, between March and September 2010, I worked as a senior editor and reporter at the news website, bdnews24.com and before that I spent seven months at the Bangladesh newspaper, the Daily Star, setting up a small investigations unit. Between 2000 and 2009, I was the Executive Director of the Centre for Corporate Accountability, a UK based not-for-profit organisation concerned with workplace safety. Before that, I worked as a Television journalist and producer for about seven years working mainly for the television production company, Twenty Twenty Television in London. In 1995, I was involved in making the Royal Television Society award winning Channel Four documentary, the 'War Crimes File', a film about war crimes allegedly committed by three men during the 1971 War of Indpendence. I have lived in Dhaka since 2003.